You know, it pisses me off that these sites make snarky "Download an up to date browser" comments. I mean, if I was running IE 6 or FF2 or some shit, yeah, but when I'm using the latest, bleeding edge of another browser I basically get told I'm using a piece of crap? I mean come on, this elitist asshole shit has to stop, especially on a site that claims to be open to all to try. Why not word it:"currently only browser X and Y has these features" and leave it at that?

when I'm using the latest, bleeding edge of another browser I basically get told I'm using a piece of crap?

If you're thinking about the one I'm thinking, the answer is definitely YES, It's an old fashioned steamy pile of shit, face it and be a man about it. Wishful thinking and head burying in the sand won't change this. Neither will shouting while pounding with your little pink fists on your keyboard like a baby being weaned.

You can get the incident ID by loading about:crashes in the browser; this should give you a list of incident IDs, with links to the crash data for them. Either the IDs or the URIs they link to would be great. Thank you!

Well Flash has all the features of HTML5 and more AND it plays the same in every browser as long as you have a plugin... and you still hate it... Face it everyone; HTML5 is fixing problems that shouldn't have existed 10 years ago - and it is doing it so poorly and vaguely not even browser makers know what's going on. Divs, positioning, layering, browser specific CSS, tables inside tables inside tables, endless debugging and cross checking. Web design is a disgusting mess and the standards are so vague tha

I was in agreement with you until around a year ago. I've developed a ~lot~ in flash over the years and, although I liked the ease of use (gui) and headache-less (all-browser-compatible) coding, I could never get it out of my head that flash was basically DHTML within a proprietary framework. Today, thanks to javascript libraries such as jQuery (that takes care of cross-browser issues by itself), it is becoming almost (but not quite) as easy to manipulate graphics and text as using flash. jQuery is already

Ok, have you used CS5/Flash 10/AS3? Did you realize you can do theming within flash inside CSS files now? Have you ever done multilingual sites/localization? Have you ever built interfaces as SWC libraries and then used those in pure AS3? Ever dealt with binary data in AS3 vs JS? I've used jQuery, it doesn't come close to the features available in Flash/AS3 and you're either fooling yourself or just doing things that don't require the advanced features provided by Flash. You mention SVG - all those features

If that was the case, they wouldn't need to check the user-agent string and block it outright and would just let you try to load it ?

If you spoof the browser string it'll run. Almost all of it runs on Chrome (which uses webkit) I'm told, haven't tried it myself.

The invalid claim is simply that in order to support an open web, we've created these demos, but you can't see them unless you using this propriatry technology. And you have to use it because we make checks for it.

I got an addon which spoofs the user-agent string and pretended I was viewing it on an iPhone, and guess what, it mostly worked. Some minor bugs but the ones I tried out on Firefox 4 pretty much worked. See, that's the open web in action.

However the one we're talking about is basically a safari advertisment, because lets face it, apple doesn't care about open standards. Apple cares about controlling everything itself - there are tons of proofs for this, I'm not going to bother listing all of them.

No, it does not.
Some inexperienced "security researcher" posted an invalid PDF document placing the fault on WebSockets for a vulnerability in other software.
And some Mozilla exec blindly skimmed the document and accepted it as fact and had websockets disabled.
But in reality, there fault has absolutely nothing to do with WebSockets, and the fault CAN NOT be fixed in WebSockets. Mozillas suggestion to the problem simply removes the ability to use WebSockets as a vector for the attack, but the attack is

Hey, do you know you can just leave out all the fancy stuff and only view the real content ? It is all interpreted you know and you can make the browser interpreted it as you like. You can make a lot of stuff just disappear.

You mean all those features that Firefox set out to remove from SeaMonkey because it was too bloody bloated and develop a nice fast browser that just browsed and let you add your own bloatware to after they had made it good at what it did?

Wow, it's like people forget what Phoenix was forked for...

Just stop adding crap to Firefox and tighten up the code, remove the bugs and have the rendering engine improve to keep pace with new developments in HTML (non)standards.
Or you could put an HTML editor, IRC a

Otherwise I don't give a crap about stuff that will make life easier for the people who create mostly lame websites. The URL bar is slow as an evil year and would be wonderful if it was fast. But it isn't.

I don't know what to do here. I don't even know what I'm looking at here. I move the mouse around the screen and things glow and whir and slide, but none of it makes any sense to my mind. HTML 5 apparently means "Hey now I can do that crazy shit I used to do with Flash, right in my HTML."

Yeah, and now instead of that crazy Flash shit being isolated to a little box of your page that I could disable, now your entire page is rendered a confusing mess of utter unusability to anyone over the age of 30.

When will web site designers learn that people don't come to their websites for their crazy Flash shit or really anything they do. They come to their web site for their CONTENT. Content doesn't mean what your web site designer does. Content means what's between the covers of a book. Content means a video. Content means user discussion boards.

Great technical browser implementation, guys. You're doing good work, but this crazy Flash-like shit shouldn't be the poster child for your work.

I think you're missing the point of what a demo is. This is to demonstrate the new features that HTML5 will enable for web developers. Just because the demo has spinning icons, scrolling bars, music, video, 3D, etc, all packed into a couple of pages, does not at all mean that this is how most future pages will look or behave. The point is that some of these features will be useful for different applications.

A couple of decades ago, the demoscene was making programs that didn't do anything but show 3D object

On the website there is a showcase of the HTML5 capabilities of rendering 3D graphics in the browser. But, hey, I remember for sure that browsers had this ability in the nineties and already then nobody cared about it.

Another thing I don't understand is why there is a constant need for new standards...HTML3, XHTML, CSS, HTML4, HTML5, etc. etc. Why? To keep committees busy? To piss of browser and web developers? To make sure that overlay ads can be displayed in any browser?

I understand the benefits of XHTML over HTML. However, wouldn't it be wise at some point to just freeze the features and perhaps focus on the content instead?

If this trend of turning my browser into a slow, clunky meta operating system continues, I will revenge myself by writing my own proprietary, slick binary web protocol, implement my own browser, and distribute it among friends. And others will likely do that, too. Goodbye HTML!

Well, you could do that, but you'd lose the whole point of moving to xhtml that is well formatted and usable by any generic xml tool. Only browsers that implement all these hacks and quirks could parse it, because everything else would correctly complain that this isn't xml.

XML is strongly typed like that on purpose, since its used for MUCH MORE important stuff than just displaying websites (SOAP, interconnections between OO languages, Serilisation) - in that case, if there's a mistake in syntax, then it means that there's something wrong and you shouldn't be using it that way.

If we all switched to XML-based stuff for our websites, automated parsers would love it, but if you make a single mistake everything could break. In this case the robustness/laziness of HTML is far bette

> Another thing I don't understand is why there is a> constant need for new standards

Some of the new standards are web developers keep asking for new features. Part of this is an expanding set of use cases, and part is expanding demographics. Now some of these revisions are more substantive than others...

For example, HTML3 introduced the and tags because authors wanted those capabilities. HTML4 introduced and various other things. XHTML introduced an XML formulation of HTML. HTML5 introduces n

They "did" SSL correctly. They just didn't encrypt all images, which makes sense in this case (in fact, using SSL at all is overkill for this page).

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that Firefox 4 Beta erroneously suppresses the error.

Uh, no. They treat it like a non-encrypted page, the same that Chrome and Opera do, and it's correct since the certificate is valid - so there's no suspicion of MITM - you simply can't rely on the HTTPS since some of the elements use HTTP.

Browsers treating this kind of pages as "potential threats" is bad, because it forces people to drop all SSL if they can't pr

Opera treats this as an "insecure" page but doesn't warn you. It just doesn't show it as "secure" (with yellow, green or anything else for the padlock icon).

It is, in effect, an "insecure" page because of that a single missing SSL element, which is correct, but not worth shouting about because you should be checking for the padlock before you eve TYPE anything sensitive in. And it's a completely worthless site to have SSL on, except to bump up the system requirements.

Yes, it's possible the page is being MITM, but there's no reason to assume that. A broken certificate, on the other hand, is a reason to be suspicious.

Which is probably why Chrome in fact does flag the page broken, and I'd hope Opera does too.

Firefox 4, on the other hand, just happily goes on like nothing's wrong...

Firefox does not treat the page as safe. It treats the page as unencrypted, which is the right thing to do.

If you go to https://paypal.com/ [paypal.com] you'll see that the URL bar has a green zone with Paypal's logo. Yet, in the Web O' Wonder there's no such green zone.So yes, Firefox 4 does recognize that the page isn't safe.